Orissa High Court
Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee vs Central Bureau Of Investigation .... ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3421 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 read
with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
Central Bureau of Investigation .... Opp. Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Ajit Kumar Singh, Adv.
For Opp. Party (s) : Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Public
Prosecutor-cum-Retainer Counsel, CBI.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-05.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present CRLMC has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR bearing RC No.2172024A0017 dated 07.12.2024 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), AC-II Branch, New Delhi, for offences under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46
(i) The petitioner, Shri Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee, who was serving as Group General Manager of M/s Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., a Government of India enterprise, has been arrayed as an accused along with other persons including Shri Santosh Moharana, Shri Mana Mohan Moharana, Shri Debadutta Mohapatra, and M/s Penta A Studio Pvt. Ltd.
(ii) According to the FIR registered on the basis of source information, it was alleged that the petitioner, in his capacity as Group General Manager of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., had been indulging in corrupt practices in connection with awarding work orders and clearing bills relating to civil construction projects obtained by the company from National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO) at project sites including Damanjodi and Visakhapatnam, and that a portion of the said work had been subcontracted to M/s Penta A Studio Pvt. Ltd., whose Director is Shri Santosh Moharana.
(iii) It is further alleged in the FIR that on 06.12.2024 the petitioner called Shri Santosh Moharana and his father Shri Mana Mohan Moharana to his office at Bhubaneswar and demanded illegal gratification of ₹10,00,000/- in return for favour in future billings, which amount was to be delivered on 07.12.2024 after 18:00 hours. Based on this information, the CBI registered the case and laid a trap on 07.12.2024.
(iv) During the trap proceedings, it is alleged by the investigating agency that the bribe amount of ₹10 lakhs was delivered by accused Santosh Moharana to the petitioner, and that the petitioner subsequently Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 handed over the said amount to another accused, Shri Debadutta Mohapatra, which amount was recovered from the Mercedes car of the said co-accused in the presence of independent witnesses.
(v) The respondent further states that searches were conducted at the residential and official premises of the accused persons, during which certain documents and digital devices were seized. The investigation also allegedly revealed telephonic communication from the mobile phone of the petitioner to Shri Debadutta Mohapatra on the evening of 07.12.2024 directing him to receive the said amount and thereafter meeting him near Mayfair Hotel where the amount was handed over.
(vi) It has also been stated during investigation that the petitioner had met Shri Bishnupada Sethi, then Principal Secretary to the Government of Odisha, on 05.12.2024 in connection with certain projects of the SC/ST Department being executed by Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., and that during the course of investigation both Shri Debadutta Mohapatra and Shri Bishnupada Sethi were subsequently arraigned as accused.
II. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner contends that the impugned FIR has been registered solely on the basis of vague, unverified and uncorroborated source information without any credible material disclosing the commission Page 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 of a cognizable offence, and that the allegations made therein are bald and omnibus, lacking any specific factual foundation regarding the alleged demand or acceptance of illegal gratification.
(ii) It is submitted that the meeting held on 06.12.2024 with Shri Santosh Moharana was merely a routine project coordination meeting convened to discuss issues relating to labour mobilisation, manpower augmentation, project delays and execution timelines in respect of the ongoing projects of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.
which were under pressure from NALCO for timely completion, and that the allegation that such meeting was convened for demanding bribe is wholly false and unsupported by any evidence.
(iii) The petitioner further asserts that in his capacity as Strategic Business Unit Head and Group General Manager, he has no role in the preparation, certification or clearance of project bills, as such processes are carried out strictly at the project site level by field engineers and are subject to verification and certification by the client organisation NALCO and its consultant TKIS before being processed through designated financial channels, and therefore the allegation that he could "adjust" bribe amounts in future billings is administratively impossible and structurally untenable.
(iv) It is contended that no tainted money has been recovered from the petitioner, nor has any incriminating document, communication, electronic record or financial trail been discovered linking the petitioner with any act of demand, acceptance or facilitation of illegal Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 gratification, despite searches conducted at his residence, office premises and bank locker.
(v) The petitioner submits that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 7, 8, 9 or 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly the indispensable requirement of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and therefore the continuation of investigation against him amounts to abuse of the process of law.
(vi) Relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 the petitioner argues that the present case falls within the categories where criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed, particularly where the allegations do not disclose any offence or are inherently improbable and where the criminal process has been invoked maliciously without any foundational material.
(vii) It is finally contended that the continuation of investigation against the petitioner despite absence of prima facie material causes unwarranted harassment and irreparable reputational damage to a senior public servant and therefore warrants exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the impugned FIR. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY (CBI):
4. Learned counsel for the State earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
1
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46
(i) The respondent-CBI contends that the FIR was registered on the basis of reliable source information disclosing cognizable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the allegations against the petitioner are supported by prima facie material collected during investigation indicating demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
(ii) It is submitted that during investigation it was revealed that the petitioner demanded ₹10 lakhs as illegal gratification from the subcontractor Shri Santosh Moharana in connection with project work of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., and that in pursuance of the said demand a trap was laid on 07.12.2024 during which the bribe amount was delivered and subsequently recovered from the vehicle of co-accused Shri Debadutta Mohapatra in the presence of independent witnesses.
(iii) The respondent further contends that the sequence of events on 07.12.2024, including telephonic communications from the petitioner's mobile phone to Shri Debadutta Mohapatra and the subsequent meeting near Mayfair Hotel where the bribe money was allegedly handed over, clearly establishes the petitioner's involvement in the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount.
(iv) It is also submitted that searches conducted at the premises of the accused persons resulted in seizure of several incriminating documents and digital devices and that further investigation is in progress, the details of which cannot be disclosed at this stage.
Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46
(v) The respondent argues that the FIR merely sets the criminal law in motion and that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the reliability or sufficiency of the evidence collected during investigation.
(vi) Placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Pratima Mohanty2 and State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh3, the respondent submits that the power to quash FIRs in corruption cases should be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particularly at the stage of investigation, and that courts should ordinarily adopt a hands-off approach where the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences.
(vii) On these grounds, the respondent prays that the present petition for quashing of the FIR be dismissed as being devoid of merit and premature at the stage of ongoing investigation. IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The present petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These provisions save the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders 2 2022 16 SCC 703 3 2023 6 SCC 559 Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 necessary to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
7. The principles governing exercise of inherent power to quash an FIR are well settled. The inherent power is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only where the Court is satisfied that continuation of the criminal process would amount to abuse of process or would defeat the ends of justice.
8. The Court, while examining a prayer to quash at the threshold, does not conduct a mini trial nor does it assess the probative value or reliability of evidence. It primarily examines whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose commission of a cognizable offence and whether the case falls within the limited illustrative categories for quashing.
9. In Bhajan Lal (Supra) the Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India in paragraph 102 enumerated illustrative categories where quashing may be justified. These include, inter alia, cases where the allegations even if accepted in entirety do not disclose any offence, or are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could proceed, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive. The said categories are illustrative and not exhaustive, and the normal rule remains that investigation should not be interdicted when the FIR discloses an offence.
10.In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra4 the Supreme Court emphasized that courts should not thwart investigation; 4 2021 6 SCC 73 Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 quashing is an exception and rarity; and an FIR is not an encyclopedia and need not contain all details. The Court reiterated that at the quashing stage the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry into genuineness or otherwise of allegations, and ordinarily the investigating machinery must be permitted to collect material and complete investigation in accordance with law. The Court held as follows:
"When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly."
11.Applying these principles to the present case, this Court is unable to hold, at this threshold stage, that the impugned FIR is so bereft of substance as to warrant quashing in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The FIR, read with the respondent's reply, does not rest on a bare or abstract allegation alone; it discloses a specific accusation of demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner from a named contractor, the laying of a trap on the very next day, the alleged delivery of the bribe amount, the subsequent transfer of that amount by the petitioner to a co-accused, recovery of the said amount from the co-accused's vehicle in the presence of independent witnesses, Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 and further material allegedly gathered during investigation in the form of telephonic communications and seized documents/digital devices.
12.Whether these materials ultimately prove demand, acceptance, use of official position, or involvement of the petitioner in the manner alleged, is a matter for investigation and, if necessary, trial; it cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS. The defence of the petitioner that the meeting dated 06.12.2024 was only a routine project coordination meeting, that he had no authority in billing matters, that no money was recovered from his person, and that the allegations are inherently improbable, are all matters which touch upon disputed questions of fact and the evidentiary worth of the prosecution material.
13.At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a comparative assessment of the rival versions so as to return findings on administrative procedure, actual role allocation within the organisation, or the genuineness of the trap- related material. On a plain reading, the allegations do disclose cognizable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and do not fall within those rare categories where even if accepted in entirety no offence is made out or where the prosecution story is so absurd on its face that no prudent person could proceed. In such circumstances, interdiction of investigation at the threshold would be contrary to the settled restraints governing the exercise of inherent power.
14. The impugned FIR alleges offences under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended. Section 7 criminalizes a Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 public servant obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain an undue advantage with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly, or to forbear performance of such duty. Section 8 criminalizes giving or promising to give an undue advantage to another to induce improper performance of public duty by a public servant, subject to statutory exceptions and conditions contained in the provision.
15. Sections 9 and 10 address bribery by a commercial organisation and the liability of persons in charge where an offence under Section 9 is committed by such organisation and is proved to have been committed with consent or connivance of specified officers. At the stage of considering a petition to quash an FIR, this Court is not required to return findings on whether the ingredients are ultimately established beyond reasonable doubt. The limited enquiry is whether the allegations in the FIR, read as a whole, disclose the commission of cognizable offences and warrant investigation.
16.In the present case, the FIR discloses, in substance, specific allegations of demand of illegal gratification on 06.12.2024, a scheduled delivery on 07.12.2024, laying of trap, delivery of the alleged bribe amount, and alleged movement and recovery of the amount from the vehicle connected with a co-accused, in the presence of independent witnesses, along with reference to telephonic communication and a meeting proximate in time.
17.The petitioner is Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee stated to have been serving as Group General Manager in Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., and the FIR Page 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 is registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, AC-II Branch, New Delhi, pertaining to projects connected with National Aluminium Company Limited. These background facts supply the alleged context for the demand, namely future favour in billings and project related dealings.
18.The petitioner urges that the FIR rests on vague and uncorroborated source information and that his meeting on 06.12.2024 was merely a routine coordination meeting. He further contends that he had no administrative role in bill certification or clearance, that recovery was not from his person, and that no incriminating document or financial trail exists.
19.At this stage, the Court cannot adjudicate the petitioner's defence that the meeting was routine, that he had no role in billing, or that the alleged adjustment in future billings was structurally impossible. These are matters requiring appreciation of evidence relating to internal delegation of powers, manner of bill processing, the nature of communications, and the sequence of events, which fall within the domain of investigation and, if a final report is filed, within the province of the trial court. Entertaining such defences at the FIR stage would amount to an impermissible assessment of factual disputes and probative worth of materials.
20.The petitioner's contention that the FIR is based on unverified information also cannot be accepted to mean that registration of an FIR is vitiated merely because it originated from source inputs. In State of Telangana v. Managipet5, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatorily required in all corruption cases and that quashing is 5 2019 19 SCC 87 Page 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 warranted only where, upon reading the entire FIR, no offence is disclosed. The Court clarified that the purpose of any preliminary inquiry, where undertaken, is not to test the veracity but to ascertain whether the information reveals a cognizable offence. The Court held as follows:
"Therefore, we hold that the preliminary inquiry warranted in Lalita Kumari is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be conducted. Therefore, any formal and informal collection of information disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient."
21.This Court also takes note of the caution consistently expressed by the precedents that quashing of proceedings should not be lightly undertaken in corruption matters, particularly at the stage of investigation.
22.The petitioner's reliance on Bhajan Lal (Supra) categories does not advance his case at this stage. On a plain reading of the FIR, the allegations are neither bereft of essential assertions nor inherently improbable in the manner contemplated in Bhajan Lal. The FIR does not present a case where, accepting all allegations as true, no offence is made out. Rather, it contains specific assertions as to demand, scheduled payment, trap and recovery linked to the alleged transaction. Therefore, the petition does not satisfy the threshold requirement for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash.
Page 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2026 10:57:46 V. CONCLUSION:
23.For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that the impugned FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and the present petition is premature at the stage of an ongoing investigation. Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate investigation, contrary to the settled parameters governing exercise of inherent powers. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
24.It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to adjudication of the prayer for quashing at the FIR stage and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations. The investigating agency shall proceed in accordance with law, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as are permissible at the appropriate stage under law.
25.The interim order staying the proceedings, if any, is vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13TH March, 2026/ Page 14